Savoie, Mary Lynn

Abstract Background: MyeloMATCH is an NCI-sponsored initiative for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) employing a Master Screening and Reassessment Protocol (MSRP) to assign patients (pts) to a pt and disease biology-specific clinical trial. Several trials evaluating initial therapies are currently open, while subsequent trials dedicated to eradicating measurable residual disease during consolidation and including stem cell transplant are being developed. A pt enrolled at diagnosis may be followed longitudinally and be eligible for trials in sequential tiers throughout the treatment course. We report key data concerning the first cohort of pts enrolled on the MSRP. Methods: After pts with suspected AML or MDS consent for the MSRP, blood and marrow are sent to the myeloMATCH Molecular Diagnostics Network (MDNet) of central CLIA labs operating under a single Investigational Device Exemption to rapidly define molecular, cytogenetic, and immunophenotypic characteristics. These data are catalogued by a bioinformatics team (MATCHBox) and reviewed daily to assign participants to an available trial based on pt and disease features. A Tier Advancement Pathway (TAP) allows standard of care therapy with potential for assignment to subsequent myeloMATCH trials. Since activation in May 2024, 550 patients age≥18 were enrolled on the MSRP from 76 institutions: 48 Academic, 14 NCORP, 11 community, 3 VA. There are currently 4 open randomized AML trials (≥age 60 or unfit with mutant FLT3, ≥age 60 IDH2 mutant AML, fit age<60 ELN 2017 intermediate-risk AML, fit age<60 ELN 2017 adverse risk) and 1 MDS trial(IDH2 mutant). Patients not eligible for an open protocol were assigned to TAP. Results: Of the 550 pts consented, 491 completed screening assays; 49 had no or incomplete samples; 10 withdrew before completed analysis. Median cytogenetic turnaround time (TAT) was 69 hours (91% within 72 hours), and median Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) TAT from receipt was 49 hours (95% within 72 hours). Seventy-six pts (of 491 with assay data) were not assigned due to non-AML or non-MDS diagnoses, the most common being: B-ALL [n=11], MPN [9], benign marrow [9], APML [7], and MPAL [6]. The AML/MDS verified cohort was 415 pts, 366 (89.2%) patients with AML (45% age <60) and 49 (11.8%) with MDS. The median age at screening was 63 years (range:18-95) and 186 (45%) were female. Eighty-two percent identified as White, 7.5% Black, 3% Asian, 7% unknown, and 9% as Hispanic. The most frequent mutations in the AML pts were NPM1 (24.0%), DNMT3A (22.7%), TET2 (19.9%), NRAS (18.0%), FLT3 (18.0% ITD, TKD 7.1%), TP53 (14.5%), and CEBPA (8.7%); IDH1/2 mutation rates were 8.2% and 13.7%, respectively. Co-mutations include FLT3/NPM1 (9.8%), NPM1/IDH2 (4.4%), IDH1/2 and any RAS (3.8%). Karyotypes were normal in 40.4%, complex 20.8%, inv(16) 6.0%, MLL/KMT2A 4.6% and t(8;21) 1.9%. 29% had favorable risk disease, 29% intermediate, and 42% adverse (ELN 2017). In MDS, mutations included: TP53 (36.7%), RUNX1 (20.4%) ASXL1 (20.4%), TET2 (18.4%), spliceosome mutations (SRSF2, SF3B1, U2AF1 and ZRSR2, 28.6%) andIDH1/2 in 4.1% and 6.1%, respectively. Karyotypes were normal in 24.5%; complex in 40.8%. By IPSS-R, 2.4% were low, 73.8% intermediate, 2.4% high, and 21.4% very high risk. 82/415 (20%) pts were assigned to initial therapy protocol, with an increase in assignment rate to 44% in the most recent two months. 71/415 pts (16%) were enrolled in one of the MyeloMATCH studies. Three-hundred forty-four pts (80%) were assigned and enrolled to TAP (296 AML, 48 MDS) for potential assignment to subsequent tier trials. In the TAP AML pts, 99 (33%) have completed initial treatment, including intensive chemotherapy (IC) in 62% of pts and hypomethylating agents/venetoclax (HMA/VEN) in 38%. In pts <60 years of age, 87% received IC v. 13% with HMA/VEN, in >60 34% IC v. 66% HMA/VEN and in age 60-75 42% IC v. 58% HMA/Ven. Conclusion: MyeloMATCH has screened over 500 pts from academic and community sites in the US and Canada in 14 months, meeting the TAT goal of sample acquisition to results of <72 hours. Assignment to treatment protocols has substantially increased recently. As additional trials open (12 in development) we expect the percentage of pts enrolled on MSRP who go on to therapeutic trials will markedly increase, thereby allowing a personalized medicine approach for a broad group of US and Canadian adult pts with AML and MDS.

Abstract We evaluate the impact of donor types on outcomes of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in myelofibrosis, using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research registry data for HCTs done between 2013 and 2019. In all 1597 patients, the use of haploidentical donors increased from 3% in 2013 to 19% in 2019. In study-eligible 1032 patients who received peripheral blood grafts for chronic-phase myelofibrosis, 38% of recipients of haploidentical HCT were non-White/Caucasian. Matched sibling donor (MSD)–HCTs were associated with superior overall survival (OS) in the first 3 months (haploidentical hazard ratio [HR], 5.80 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.52-13.35]; matched unrelated (MUD) HR, 4.50 [95% CI, 2.24-9.03]; mismatched unrelated HR, 5.13 [95% CI, 1.44-18.31]; P < .001). This difference in OS aligns with lower graft failure with MSD (haploidentical HR, 6.11 [95% CI, 2.98-12.54]; matched unrelated HR, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.20-4.51]; mismatched unrelated HR, 1.82 [95% CI, 0.58-5.72]). There was no significant difference in OS among haploidentical, MUD, and mismatched unrelated donor HCTs in the first 3 months. Donor type was not associated with differences in OS beyond 3 months after HCT, relapse, disease-free survival, or OS among patients who underwent HCT within 24 months of diagnosis. Patients who experienced graft failure had more advanced disease and commonly used nonmyeloablative conditioning. Although MSD-HCTs were superior, there is no significant difference in HCT outcomes from haploidentical and MUDs. These results establish haploidentical HCT with posttransplantation cyclophosphamide as a viable option in myelofibrosis, especially for ethnic minorities underrepresented in the donor registries.

Abstract Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is the only curative therapy for myelofibrosis (MF). In this large multicenter retrospective study, overall survival (OS) in MF patients treated with allogeneic HCT (551 patients) and without HCT (non-HCT) (1377 patients) was analyzed with Cox proportional hazards model. Survival analysis stratified by the Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) revealed that the first year of treatment arm assignment, due to upfront risk of transplant-related mortality (TRM), HCT was associated with inferior OS compared with non-HCT (non-HCT vs HCT: DIPSS intermediate 1 [Int-1]: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.26, P < .0001; DIPSS-Int-2 and higher: HR, 0.39, P < .0001). Similarly, in the DIPSS low-risk MF group, due to upfront TRM risk, OS was superior with non-HCT therapies compared with HCT in the first-year post treatment arm assignment (HR, 0.16, P = .006). However, after 1 year, OS was not significantly different (HR, 1.38, P = .451). Beyond 1 year of treatment arm assignment, an OS advantage with HCT therapy in Int-1 and higher DIPSS score patients was observed (non-HCT vs HCT: DIPSS-Int-1: HR, 2.64, P < .0001; DIPSS-Int-2 and higher: HR, 2.55, P < .0001). In conclusion, long-term OS advantage with HCT was observed for patients with Int-1 or higher risk MF, but at the cost of early TRM. The magnitude of OS benefit with HCT increased as DIPSS risk score increased and became apparent with longer follow-up.

PURPOSE: Patients with acute myeloid leukemia with high-risk cytogenetics in first complete remission (CR1) achieve better outcomes if they undergo allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) compared with consolidation chemotherapy alone. However, only approximately 40% of such patients typically proceed to HCT. METHODS: We used a prospective organized approach to rapidly identify donors to improve the allogeneic HCT rate in adults with high-risk acute myeloid leukemia in CR1. Newly diagnosed patients had cytogenetics obtained at enrollment, and those with high-risk cytogenetics underwent expedited HLA typing and were encouraged to be referred for consultation with a transplantation team with the goal of conducting an allogeneic HCT in CR1. RESULTS: Of 738 eligible patients (median age, 49 years; range, 18-60 years of age), 159 (22%) had high-risk cytogenetics and 107 of these patients (67%) achieved CR1. Seventy (65%) of the high-risk patients underwent transplantation in CR1 ( P < .001 compared with the historical rate of 40%). Median time to HCT from CR1 was 77 days (range, 20-356 days). In landmark analysis, overall survival (OS) among patients who underwent transplantation was significantly better compared with that of patients who did not undergo transplantation (2-year OS, 48% v 35%, respectively [ P = .031]). Median relapse-free survival after transplantation in the high-risk cohort who underwent transplantation in CR1 (n = 70) was 11.5 months (range, 4-47 months), and median OS after transplantation was 14 months (range, 4-44 months). CONCLUSION: Early cytogenetic testing with an organized effort to identify a suitable allogeneic HCT donor led to a CR1 transplantation rate of 65% in the high-risk group, which, in turn, led to an improvement in OS when compared with the OS of patients who did not undergo transplantation.

Abstract Background: Adult acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients with high-risk cytogenetics have a significantly worse survival compared to similarly treated intermediate- or favorable-risk patients. Although prior studies suggest better outcome in high-risk AML patients in first complete remission (CR1) who undergo allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) compared with consolidation chemotherapy, only 40% of patients proceed to HCT. The lack of a matched sibling donor (available in about 33%) should not be a barrier to HCT since alternative donors are available for the large majority of high-risk AMLpatients and recent data suggest outcomes after allogeneic HCT from fully matched unrelated donors are similar to those following matched related donor transplantation. We sought to determine if a prospective organized effort could rapidly identify alternative donors to improve the historical 40% allogeneic HCT rate in high-risk CR1 AML patients ≤ age 61. Secondly, we hypothesized that transplanting significantly more adults with high-risk AML in CR1 would lead to an improved outcome compared with the historical relapse-free survival (RFS) of 22%. Patients and Methods: Adult patients between ages 18 and 60 years with untreated AML were randomized to receive induction therapy with standard cytarabine plus daunorubicin (7+3; n=261), idarubicin with high-dose cytarabine (IA; n=261), or IA with vorinostat (IA+V; n=216). Conventional cytogenetics were obtained at time of enrollment and used to determine risk classification by standard criteria. All patients with high-risk cytogenetics underwent expedited HLA-typing. High-risk patientswere encouraged tobe referred for consultation with a transplant team with the goal of conducting an allogeneic HCT in CR1. Results: Of 738 eligible patients (median age, 49 years; range, 18-60), 159 (22%) had high-risk cytogenetics, of whom 60 (38%), 61 (38%), and 38 (24%) received induction with 7+3, IA, or IA+V, respectively. A total of 107 of the 159 high-risk patients achieved CR/CRi (67%). HCT was performed in 317 of all 738 patients (43%) and 68 (64%) of the high-risk patients received a transplant in CR1 (p<0.001 compared to historical rate of 40%). Twenty-five (37%) had a matched related donor, 31 (45%) had a matched unrelated donor, 3 (4%) had a mismatched related donor, 8 (12%) had a mismatched unrelated donor, and 1 (1%) received an umbilical cord blood transplant. Sixty-six high-risk patients transplanted in CR/CRi have detailed data. Median time to HCT from CR1 was 76 days (range, 20-365). Fifty-seven patients (86%) received a myeloablative regimen and 9 (14%) reduced-intensity conditioning. Reasons for 39 high-risk CR1 patients not receiving a transplant in CR1 were: co-morbidities (n=1), death (n=6), no insurance (n=1), no donor (n=1), physician decision (n=3), patient decision (n=3), relapse (n=6), other (n=10), or unknown (n=8). The 2-year RFS estimate in the entire high-risk cohort is 32%, significantly higher than the 22% historical rate (p=0.05). Median RFS in the high-risk CR1 cohort (n=107) was 10 months [range, 1-32* (censored) months]. RFS and OS were similar among HCT patients using matched related [1 year estimates: 40% (95% CI 27%, 74%) and 56% (37%, 74%), respectively] and matched unrelated [1 year estimates: 52% (37%, 75%) and 56% (37%, 74%), respectively] donors in CR1. The HR (reference = unrelated) for RFS was 0.67 (0.32, 1.37) and for OS was 0.88 (0.41, 1.90). Median overall survival (OS) among all patients in the high-risk cohort (n=159) was 12 months [range, 1-33* (censored) months] and was 18 months [range 3-33* (censored) months] for those transplanted in CR1 (Fig. 1). Conclusions: In newly diagnosed adults with AML age 18-60, early cytogenetic testing with an organized effort to identify a suitable allogeneic HCT donorled to a CR1 transplant rate of 64% in the high-risk group, which in turn led to a significant improvement in RFS over historical controls. Better outcomes in poor prognosis AML patients may be achieved simply by rapidly finding unrelated donors and performing allogeneic HCT in CR1 as soon as possible. Clinical Trials Registry: NCT #0180233; Support: NIH/NCI grants: CA180888, CA180819, CA18020, CA180821, CA180863, CA077202; CCSRI #021039 Figure 1 Overall Survival (OS) among all patients in the high-risk cohort, all high-risk patients achieving CR1, and in those high-risk patients transplanted in CR1. Figure 1. Overall Survival (OS) among all patients in the high-risk cohort, all high-risk patients achieving CR1, and in those high-risk patients transplanted in CR1. Disclosures Othus: Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Radich:Novartis: Consultancy, Other: laboratory contract; ARIAD: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; TwinStrand: Consultancy; Bristol-MyersSquibb: Consultancy. Strickland:Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Ambit: Consultancy; Baxalta: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutica: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Savoie:AbbVie: Consultancy; Lundbeck: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Velgene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy. Sekeres:Millenium/Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stone:Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Xenetic Biosciences: Consultancy; Jansen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; ONO: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celator: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Erba:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; Agios: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Sunesis: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Astellas: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 680 Cytogenetics play an essential role in determining the prognosis of patients with AML. However, there is still no validated cytogenetics grouping scheme that specifically applies to patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation, which hampers accurate prognostication and risk stratification. We studied 821 adult patients (median age 41, range 18–74) who underwent SCT between 1999 and 2004 for AML (excluding APL) in CR1 or CR2 and who were reported to the CIBMTR from centers with >20 patients meeting study criteria. 75% of patients received a myeloablative conditioning. 496 patients had a normal karyotype. The primary cytogenetics reports were manually reviewed for 92% of the patients with an abnormal karyotype. We compared the ability of the 6 existing grouping schemes (MRC, CALGB, EORTC/GIMEMA, SWOG/ECOG, DFCI, and Monosomal Karyotype (MK) classifications) to stratify patients, using both the Akaike Information Criterion in multivariable models and the C-statistic. Among all existing schemes, the DFCI system provided a marginally superior stratification for overall and leukemia-free survival. We also built a new classification using individual cytogenetic abnormalities in a Cox model that included other significant covariates (performance status, therapy-related disease, conditioning intensity, graft source, donor match, duration of CR1, and gender match). This CIBMTR scheme (see Table), which is similar to the DFCI scheme except for the inclusion of patients with t(8;21) in the intermediate group, could stratify patients into 3 groups with similar treatment-related mortality but significantly different overall survival, leukemia-free survival, and incidence of relapse. This scheme appeared to apply to both patients in CR1 and in CR2 (see FiguresF2). This transplant-specific scheme could be adopted for prognostication purposes and to stratify patients with karyotypic abnormalities entering transplantation clinical trials. Future studies may clarify the relative outcome of patients with t(8;21) and refine this scheme with the inclusion of molecular abnormalities. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background: A majority of younger pts with AML receive initial therapy with a 7+3 scheme. Escalated doses of daunorubicin (dauno) in combination with standard doses of ara-C may lead to improved outcomes (Fernandez; NEJM 2009). A phase II trial of idarubicin and high-dose ara-C (IA) in combination with the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat (IA+V) resulted in historically high response rates compared to IA or 7+3 (Garcia-Manero; JCO 2011). SWOG 1203 tested whether a high-dose ara-C induction with or without vorinostat could result in improved outcomes for younger AML pts compared to 7+3. Methods: The primary endpoints were comparison of event-free survival (EFS) of 7+3 vs IA vs IA+V and evaluating the frequency of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Secondary endpoints included toxicity, remission rate, relapse-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS) according to treatment arm, and by cytogenetic and molecular subgroups. Because of the historical trend of cured pts in S0106, EFS was modeled with an exponential cure model, and it was assumed IA or IA+vorinostat increased the proportion of pts cured from 35% to 45% and increased median EFS among those not cured from 4.7 months to 7.1 months. Main inclusion criteria included a diagnosis of previously untreated non-APL AML by WHO criteria, age 15 to 60 years, and preserved cardiac function but no severe comorbidities. Pts with known CBF rearranged or FLT3 mutant leukemias were eligible if no other alternative clinical trials existed. Treatment was as follows: Induction: 7+3 arm: dauno 90 mg/m2 IV QD x 3 on days 1-3 with ara-C CI 100 mg/m2 QD x 7 days on days 1 to 7. IA arm: ida 12 mg/m2 QD x 3 on days 1 to 3 with 24 hours CI ara-C 1.5 gm/m2 QD for 4 days on days 1 to 4. IA+vorinostat was as IA but with vorinostat 500 mg orally TID for 3 days on days 1 to 3. Consolidation: 7+3 arm: standard high-dose ara-c at 3 gm/m2 over 3 hrs q12 hours x 6 doses for 1 to 4 cycles depending on transplant availability. IA arm: idarubicin 8 mg/m2 IV QD x 2 days on days 1 to 2 with ara-C 0.75 gm/m2 CI for 3 days on days 1 to 3 for 4 cycles. The number of consolidation cycles depended on transplant indication; a secondary aim of the study was to transplant all cytogenetically-determined high risk pts (presented in a different abstract). Results: Of 754 pts randomized, 738 were eligible (261 to 7+3, 261 to IA, and 216 to IA+V). Baseline characteristics were well balanced among all three groups. Most (75%) pts were between 40 and 60 years, 51% were male, median (range) WBC and platelets were 10.8 (0.3-800) and 49 (3-3900), respectively; marrow blast percentage was 60% (0%-100%); cytogenetics were favorable in 13% of pts, intermediate in 63%, and high-risk in 22%; FLT-3 was mutated in 21% and unknown in 31%; NPM1 was mutated in 20% and was unknown in 37%. Complete remission (CR) rates were 75% for 7+3, 79% for IA, and 77% for IA+V (p=0.58). Significantly more pts received reinduction with 7+3 (24%) versus 11% with IA and 9% with IA+V (p=0.001). 48% of intermediate and unfavorable risk pts received transplant in CR1, with no significant differences among arms (p=0.44). There were no significant differences in EFS, RFS or OS among all three arms (Figure 1, all p>0.5). By cytogenetic or molecular group, there were no differences in outcome for any standard risk subset (FLT-3, NPM1, or CEBPα or cytogenetic subset), although pts with favorable cytogenetics had significantly better EFS, RFS and OS with 7+3 therapy compared to IA or IA+V (Figure 2, all p≤0.015). 30% of pts received 1 consolidation cycle, 18% 2, 16% 3, and 37% 4 cycles. Grade 5 induction toxicity rates were 4% (7+3), 8% (IA), and 9% (IA+V) by arm (p=0.07), and for toxicities related to therapy, 2%, 7%, 8%, respectively (p=0.01). Grade 4 induction toxicity rates were similar across arms (p=0.38). Conclusion: Treatment with IA is not more effective than 7+3 in younger pts with AML. Outcomes with IA or IA plus vorinostat are similar. In pts with favorable cytogenetics, outcomes were inferior with IA or IA+V when compared to 7+3, perhaps related to use of lower doses of ara-C during consolidation. Clinical Trials Registry: NCT #0180233 Support: NIH/NCI grants CA180888, CA180819, CA18020, CA180821, CA180863, CA077202; CCSRI grant #021039 Disclosures Othus: Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Radich:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Strickland:Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Baxalta: Consultancy; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Ambit: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutica: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Savoie:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Lundbeck: Consultancy. Sekeres:Millenium/Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stone:Amgen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Jansen: Consultancy; Xenetic Biosciences: Consultancy; Celator: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy; ONO: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Erba:Sunesis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Ariad: Consultancy; Astellas: Research Funding; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Astellas: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; Agios: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Agios: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celator: Research Funding; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Juno: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB.

Abstract HLA-haploidentical hematopoietic cell transplantation (Haplo-HCT) using posttransplantation cyclophosphamide (PT-Cy) has improved donor availability. However, a matched sibling donor (MSD) is still considered the optimal donor. Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database, we compared outcomes after Haplo-HCT vs MSD in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in first complete remission (CR1). Data from 1205 adult CR1 AML patients (2008-2015) were analyzed. A total of 336 patients underwent PT-Cy–based Haplo-HCT and 869 underwent MSD using calcineurin inhibitor–based graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis. The Haplo-HCT group included more reduced-intensity conditioning (65% vs 30%) and bone marrow grafts (62% vs 7%), consistent with current practice. In multivariable analysis, Haplo-HCT and MSD groups were not different with regard to overall survival (P = .15), leukemia-free survival (P = .50), nonrelapse mortality (P = .16), relapse (P = .90), or grade II-IV acute GVHD (P = .98). However, the Haplo-HCT group had a significantly lower rate of chronic GVHD (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.48; P &lt; .001). Results of subgroup analyses by conditioning intensity and graft source suggested that the reduced incidence of chronic GVHD in Haplo-HCT is not limited to a specific graft source or conditioning intensity. Center effect and minimal residual disease–donor type interaction were not predictors of outcome. Our results indicate a lower rate of chronic GVHD after PT-Cy–based Haplo-HCT vs MSD using calcineurin inhibitor–based GVHD prophylaxis, but similar other outcomes, in patients with AML in CR1. Haplo-HCT is a viable alternative to MSD in these patients.